--- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltabl...@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > I've heard is that he was a case of > > arrested development. He never had a real childhood, > > and he remained very immature emotionally. It was > > easier for him to relate to children than to adults > > (especially given his superstar status, where all the > > adults he knew wanted a piece of him), so he > > surrounded himself with children, who at least > > wouldn't try to take advantage of him. At the same > > time, he could model the loving father he never had. > > He was essentially redoing his own childhood. > > You know where this came from? Michael Jackson describing > why his desire to sleep with young boys (never young girls) > was not a case of homosexual pedophilia, but instead was > ...you know...an innocent 'ting. I have heard interviews > with physiologists tearing this nonsense apart.
Physiologists?? > Having a working showbiz childhood doesn't make it > necessary to sleep in the bed with only boys of a very > specific age. "Make it necessary" is a straw man; nobody's saying it was *necessary*. He *wanted* to do it, had the means and the opportunity to do it, didn't see any reason not to do it. I think you must have missed the part where I said it was sick, and that Jackson was deeply psychologically damaged. > There is another name for this behavior. And how > exactly is sleeping with young boys regaining his > lost youth? Never said he was. I said he was *redoing his childhood*. Words have meanings, Curtis. > Boys don't sleep with each other. They don't make out with > each other and Michael has been seen making out with > dozens of young boys by his staff, by stewardesses on > planes, by parents who realized they had made a big > mistake to trust him. And you don't need pictures of > naked young boys to reclaim lost youth either and hundreds > of pictures were seized at Neverland. And exactly how > many decades of being a child does it take, 5 of them? No > pity party for superstar millionaire Michael. And people > who have done business with him know him as a ruthless, > super ambitious business man, (without the girlie voice > act, he doesn't usually negotiate with that voice.) I have to say I think you have a striking lack of understanding as to the extent of the complexities of human nature. <snip more of same> <snip> > At least now I have a better understanding of why he got > away with it all those years. The fact that you would > even repeat his own excuse as if it is a legitimate > psychological thoery amazes me. I don't believe I made any claims for it other than it was the best explanation *I* had heard. Hmm, you seem to have snipped that part of my post. Isn't it funny how you can't seem to write a rebuttal without putting words in my mouth? > The hit piece on Sneddon was lame and had nothing substantial > to do with this case. Oh, my. > Trying to demonize a prosecutor as being "obsessed" when > he was trying to bring a molester of children to justice > after the first case's victim was paid off in millions > is the lamest kind of ad hominem attempt. Can you rebut any of the documented claims about how that obsession created a situation that was manifestly unfair to Jackson? Nothing wrong with simply being obsessed as long as it doesn't lead you off the straight and narrow. <snip> > Me:> Michael Jackson was a child molester > > Judy: "Quite sure of that, are you? Have some insider info?" > > me: (I name a book written by the molested child's uncle.) > > Judy from another post: > Just thought it was pretty funny that immediately > after you (mistakenly) dismissed the two detailed > Wikipedia articles as "put up by fans," you'd tout > a book about the case written by a close family > member of the accuser." > > Me: > So insider information is requested and then when it is > provided, It's my understanding that Ray Chandler had no or very little contact with his brother. In any case, when I asked if you had insider information, I meant (as I suspect you know) legitimate evidence that hasn't yet been revealed. I did not mean the account of somebody on the "inside" of one of the two factions. It would never occur to me to cite a book by one of the Jacksons as determinative with regard to Michael being innocent. <snip> > Fans and a person with a front row seat on this tragedy > have nothing in common. Fans? What fans are involved here? I'll say again, *I don't know* whether Jackson molested children. There was just too much ambiguity and contradictory testimony and strange behavior on both sides for me to be confident either way. <snip> > This posting topic started because I made a joke about > Michael's death. And when Richard accused me of being > prejudiced for making it, you piled on, defending both > Richard and Michael. Ooops, now you're just flat-out lying.
